Science Talk

death from above · Guest

Good people may call Soderbergh a scumbag for making a hagiograPic on
the communist leader and insurgent Che, but it's more useful to ask
WHY Soderbergh came to think the way he does.

Why is someone who's part of American capitalism--he has made untold
millions thru Ocean 11 movies among others--and must surely be aware
of the history of communism in the 20th century so captivated by the
myth of Guevara? Like Jesus said, 'man doesn't live by bread alone'.
It might also be said that 'man doesn't live by gun alone'. And, 'man
doesn't live on freedom alone'.

First, Soderbergh probably came to know Che Guevara thru the biography
by Jon Lee Anderson, a leftist communist-sympathizing and anti-
American journalist hired by New York Times and the Nation. It is
considered The Tome--in the English language anyway--on Che Guevara
though there are others--almost all of them written by Che
sympathizers or even worshippers.
There are anti-Che books but they are mostly polemical and poorly
researched hackworks. Whatever one may say about Anderson's despicable
views, he's been an ace journalist and has put in the time and effort
in writing a biography. And, though it's pro-Che, it has enough
integrity to show his dark sides, his mania, and his crazy vision of
the future. Of course, it is pro-communist in subtle than blatant
ways. So, when communists torture or kill it's described in mild
language such as 'coercive pressure' or 'execution'. When anti-
communists kill, it's called 'murder'. This has long been a staple of
the Left. Leftwing killers are called 'revolutioanry insurgents' or
'leftist guerillas' whereas anti-communist killers are called
'rightwing death squads'. Because the academia and media determine the
language or terminology we all use, we've been left with the
impression that leftists kill for a reason while rightwingers murder
just for the hell of it. In the communist movie Battleship Potemkin
by Sergei Eisenstein, the Tsarist troops who descend the steps are a
faceless mass, a 'death squad'. And, this impression has taken hold
in the media. Leftist insurgents and leftist 'victims' have faces.
Rightwing forces and rightwing victims are faceless. But, this
imbalance has also been due to the incompetence of the right to master
ideas, arts, and the media. In fact, leftist radicals were among the
greatest killers of the 20th century. Indeed, Che said a good
communist must be a 'cold killing machine'. So, it's about time
conservatives turned the table and called leftwing insurgents and
terrorists 'leftwing killing machines'. So, every time the liberal
media uses the term 'rightwing death squad', use the term 'leftwing
killing machines'. And, why not since Che is the one who came up with
the term?

Even today, it's not surprising that conservatives in the US has
dominance in only one media outlet, talk radio, which requires less
creativity than media and art forms dominated by the Left.
The left has always been wise to show the FACES of their victims. So,
certain victims have been sanctified. Consider Anne Frank or Emmit
Till. Or, even Che Guevara. Though Guevara was a mass murderer, he
was killed in turn. Yet, the leftists didn't let it end there. They
turned him into a Christ figure. And, he's remembered by many today as
the utlimate martyr of 'social justice'.
The Right has utterly failed at the imagery of victimhood. Though
Solzhenitsyn wrote thick book which indeed did have an impact, it was
ultimately about faceless victims. It came down to masses and
numbers, and such cannot be as effective as a single face and simple
story. Where is the rightwing version of Anne Frank or Emmitt Till
though many innocent girls have been killed by communism and many
people have been raped/murdered by rising crime?
The Right, because it generally rejects victimology, fails to take
notice of the vast numbers of victims of communism and leftism who
should be remembered. When NY police officers killed an immigrant,
Springsteen wrote a song about it. But, whoever wrote a song about a
victim of communists, leftists, or anti-American or anti-conservative
thugs?

Though the Left is generally thought to be secular and anti-religious,
it has mastered the art of religious iconography much better than the
right. Just look at Newsweek, Time, and Rolling Stone's imagistic
sanctification of Obama.
And, Hollywood has been sanctifying leftwing radicals like John
Reed(REDS). In the 90s, Oliver Stone sanctified the Jim Garrison, the
crazy liberal prosecutor of New Orleans. Spike Lee sanctified Malcolm
X. And, now we have Soderbergh sanctiifying Che Guevara.
Whatever you may say about the Left, they embrace and use the image,
sometimes masterfully. And, Art, if not forever, lasts a long time.
This is why conservatives--magazines and Talk Radio--have lost the
battle for hearts and minds of new generations.
Those who lived in the 80s and saw the fall of communism and read news
articles know what REALLY happened. But, yesterday's news are
yesterday's news unknown to future generations UNLESS such is
mythologized thru art, novels, songs, books--especially textbooks--,
PBS and cable TV documentaries, etc.
And, who controls those mythologizing tools? THAT is the crucial
question. It doesn't matter if the conservatives won the battle IN
history as long as they lose the battle OF history. History for new
generations without direct experience of the past can only come from
movies, PBS documentaries, textbooks, songs, etc. Most people never
do independent research of the past. The past as they know it comes
thru what they get from public education and popular culture.
Most magazine articles, opinion columns, talk radio broadcasts, and
newspaper articles are consumed and forgotten on a daily basis, but
certain forms of expressions are here to stay.
Go to any library, and it has movies which will be seen generation
after generation. It has documentaries that will be viewed over and
over. Even today, you can find documentaries like "Hearts and Minds"
and "In the Year of the Pig" in libraries and schools everywhere. Now,
suppose National Review or some conservative columnist had written an
article in the early 70s describing the true--evil--nature of North
Vietnamese communism; suppose this article was more accurate and
morally sound than the two leftist documentaries mentioned above. What
are the chances of anyone coming upon them today? Sure, people can do
independent research and check the archives, but yesterday's
journalism is just that; once it's gone, it's gone. Most people are
not going to pore thru microfiche or reel thru microfilm or ask for
back issues.

This isn't to underestimate the power of journalism in the Here and
Now but merely to point out that its impact is limited temporally. New
generations are born with a blank slate. They know nothing of the
past. They only know of the past thru what they are told, thru what is
accessible and easy. A kid will have to do much independent research
to come upon old National Review articles but any documentary on a
library shelf or shown in classroom will affect the way he sees the
past. And, who makes most of these documentaries? What's dispiriting
is not so much that leftists have mastered the art of media in all its
visual, musical, and artistic forms--why shouldn't they--but the
resistance or the incompetence on the right to use such means
effectively. The fact that Talk Radio is dominated by the Right isn't
necessarily to its credit. It is entertaining but the least creative
and impressionable of all formats. This isn't to say Talk Show hosts
aren't lacking in talent--most people wouldn't be good at it--, but
their method is just expressing fast opinions and arguing with callers
who aren't allowed to say much. When it comes to the art of radio,
NPR is far more creative as it discusses matters other than political
views--such as arts, culture, history, other nations with genuine
curiosity. Also, though NPR is leftist, it's subtly political,
artfully maintaining its facade of objectivity. This requires more
artistry and creativity than the Rightwing manner of just shouting
opinions. Also, NPR is much more likely to invite experts--though they
all tend to be biased toward the Left--and attract more educated
listeners. Of course, more educated doesn't necessarily mean more
sensible but just the opposite as being educated often means being
more indoctrinated. I dare say a man who's spent his life reading
Peanuts comic strips is wiser than someone who's steeped in Marxist
theory and certitudes.

Anyway, that's how it stands. The Left has mastered the art of
culture, media, and academia.
The Right has come to be seen--unfairly--as the superrich manipulating
the simple values of the not-so-rich and not-too-bright Evangelicals
so as to elect guys like Bush II who cuts taxes for the rich in
exchange for cutting federal spending on stem cell research. .
American people have come to see this as a miserable alliance if there
was one. Most rightwing CEO types know or nothing of culture or
media except Fox News. As for the Christian Right, they don't have an
artistic or creative bone in their body. It's no wonder that Mel
Gibson was so successful with Passion. Many conservatives were
finally grateful for a rightwinger with some artistic talent. Gibson
made a much better film in "Apocalypto" but conservatives stayed away
in droves because of their lack of interest in other cultures,
history, and civilizations. It's probably true that more leftists saw
Apocalypto than Christian conservatives did. This lack of interest in
most matters beyond narrow interests--economic, social, moral,
national, etc--has relegated all things intellectual, cultural, and
artistic to the Left. Rightwingers don't want to shoot with a camera
and create a work of art that may come to win the hearts and minds of
future generations yet to be born. They'd rather shoot with their guns
at animals for trophy. (Hunting for food is justifiable, hunting for
sport is not. It is also a cowardly act, a case of man using his
highpowered rifle to kill a magnificent animal just to feel tough.
Those who hunt for sport think they are so manly but it's no different
than kicking a dog. In some ways, it's even more cowardly because at
least the dog has chance of biting back. When hunters bring down
animals with highpowered rifles, it's really the act of vanity by
cowards... unless the animal has been killed for food, population
control, or because it poses a threat to human beings.)

Anyway, Soderbergh is one of the leading filmmakers in America, and
maybe in the world. We may condemn him for his political views, but
we must ask why did he come upon those views? Why isn't he an anti-
communist? How come he has no appreciation for American capitalism?
How come he admires some Marxist mass murderer? Was he born that
way?
No, no one was born a Marxist or Leftist. A person becomes a Marxist
or Leftist, but why? That is the question worth asking. So, instead
of blaming only Soderbergh, we must blame the system and forces that
made him what he is. And, we must also blame the Right for its
hapless resistance to the Left and for its uncreative and even anti-
creative mindset.

It's possible that Soderbergh was born into a leftist family but, even
so, he might have come to his senses had society set him straight.
Now, society is a loose general term. Society comprises all its
people, all the ideas, all the businesses, all the schools, etc. No
one can come under the influence of All of Society. Other than his
family and close circle of friends, a person comes under the influence
mostly of school and popular culture. If he's artistically or
intellectually inclined, he comes under the influence of books,
serious films, social theories, history, etc. His curiosity is also
likely to push him toward more 'alternative' or 'underground' forms of
expression.
So, suppose Soderbergh has been born to a politically neutral family.
Suppose he was a bright kid who loved artistic things. And, suppose
that being creative in his youth he was something of a misfit as
artistic types tend to be. So, we have a kid who's intelligent,
creative, and doesn't really fit in. Almost all serious artists who
make an impact on society are of this kind. There are few well-
adjusted artists in the world. The whole point of art, in many cases,
is to act out one's demons, work out one's frustrations thru fiction,
establish one's worth by showing off one's abilities, and seek a piece
of immortality. Misfits of this type tend to be megalomaniacal and
look upon their art not merely as money-making ventures but sacred
works for the ages that may impact mankind.

So, what kind of things would attract a kid like the young
Soderbergh? The idea that all of American culture comes down to
football and top 40 hits, that a good life is consumption and money?
Or, will the young Soderbergh be attacted to conservative magazines
written mostly by dilberts or snobs? Or, is he going to won over by
Evangelicals whose idea of truth and values tends to be rather
simpleminded? To be sure, there are serious conservative thinkers
and writers, but most of them seem troubled, disturbed, and bothered
by the idea of change or anything that shakes the bourgeois order. I
hear Jacques Barzun is a great thinker, but I doubt if he will attract
young folks. For the more general reader there is Paul Johnson, but
his anti-modernism will not win over most intelligent, creative, and
youthful types. People read Johnson to feel assured in clinging to
the tried and true and distrusting the new, not to welcome new
possibilities and ideas. It's a vision mostly thru the rear-view
mirror.

So, just think of the young Soderbergh and the kinds of things that
may have attracted him, won him over, excited him, and 'recruited'
him. For the Marines to recruit new members, patriotic slogans and
military themes do the trick. For a Church to convert new people, a
sense of community and compassion does the trick. "Recruiting"
artists and intellectuals is far more difficult process. Talented
artists and intellectuals are not only highly intelligent but vain and
creative. They have many ideas, many needs, many idiosyncracies, and
even many neuroses. Yet, it's these people who will shape and
determine what future generations know of history, culture, and
society. Their works--books and art--have lasting value. Even if
their views and values are wrong, they gain supremacy simply because
of their 'artistic' or intellectual expression. The Left doesn't
fear stupid KKK slogans and pamphlets because such have no artistic
value and will exert little influence except on total idiots. But,
the Left has long feared 'Birth of a Nation' because it's a film of
great artistic merit. The same has been said of "Triumph of the Will"
and "Olympiad". And, many on the left--especially Jews--were upset
with Mel Gibson's Passion because it had some artistic merit in
telling a story that smacked of some believed had elements of anti-
semitism. And, think of the power of Lynyrd Skynyrd's 'Sweet Home
Alabama'. The song was so effective that it even won Neil Young over.
Art and entertaiment is THAT powerful. I dare say that if most top
entertainers and artists today were conservative, most kids would be
conservative. Just imagine if most rockers had the outlook--and
talent--of Lynyrd Skynyrd. Think of the impact movies like "Ten
Commandments" and "Sands of Iwo Jima" had on the American public in
the past. Of course, liberal Hollywood still makes the occasional
rightwing movie but notice that all the villains are foreign enemies
and never domestic liberal or leftist enemies. In contrast, liberal
and leftwing films focus on the domestic conservative enemies at home.
For this reason, a liberal movie is much more effective politically
than a conservative movie. A conservative movie channels our rage at
evil forces outside America whereas a liberal movie channels our rage
at 'evil' forces--conservatives--IN America. So, the liberal movie
will have a greater impact at the polls. Conservative movies don't
make us hate liberals IN America but only enemies outside America
whereas liberal movies make us hate patriotic conservatives IN
America.

Art has the power to celebrate, glorify, and sanctify. And, so 'art is
forever'. So, Battleship Potemkin still has power over todays'
viewers. In the film community, communism is seen as a lesser evil--
if evil at all--than Reaganism or Bushism. Why is this? It's because
the Left won the battle of the Arts. When compared to artistic
expression, mere political expressions sound insipid, whiny, and
prosaic. So, when Oliver Stone made JFK, he was seen as the brave,
bold, and visionary figure whereas conservative critics came across as
whiny--though they were right about the lies in the movie. It didn't
matter that Stone was wrong on just about everything. All that
mattered was that he wrote history with the powerful lightning of
artistic imagination and creativity while conservatives only spilled
sweat and ink. The Left understood better than the Right that cinema
is the most powerful medium of the 20th century. Not that
conservatives won the war of ink as leftists won that too.

All these factors had a cumulative effect on culture. Generation after
generation, the intelligent, creative, original, and bold rejected the
Right which was seen as stuffy/snobby among the rich and boorish/
brutish among the masses; the intelligent, talented, and creative
sought freedom and experimentation by going over to liberalism. So,
the Left was the obvious choice for those with special dreams,
talents, or ideas. Of course, the radical left had little use for
artistic freedom or art-for-art's-sake. But, for most artists in the
capitalist or conservative order, leftism wasn't a reality to fear but
merely a fancy ideal to dream about. And, when leftism became a
reality in a place like USSR, information about communism was so
limited that not enough people had a strong sense of what was
happening under totalitarianism.
Anyway, liberals and the left were far more welcoming to those with
fresh, new, bold, and creative ideas, and liberals and leftists were
much more likely to PROMOTE new art and culture. That all this
freedom was made possible by capitalism was a moot point to artists
who felt exploited or oppressed by moneymen.
Anyway, generation after generation, everyone with talent had no
choice but to be 'recruited' by the left. There was hardly anything
that could be called creative culture on the right. One could defend
the right as being more practical minded, more stable, more reverent
of traditions, and etc but the truth is such people do not tell the
stories or control the sounds/images that shape the ideas of future
generations. Take the famous painting Guernica, which is based on the
German bombing of some Spanish village. It was hardly the greatest
atrocity of the 20th century but it will be remembered forever because
the great Picasso chose THAT for his subject. Or, take most
photographers who are of leftist ilk. In the 20th century, they
preferred to cover events and produced images that were bound to favor
the Left. Or, just consider the use of imagery in Time and Newweek.
Certain people are bathed in holy light while others are exposed in
harsh light. Or, photos will be selected so that conservative white
Americans are made to look fat, ugly, demented, and vile while
liberals, feminist, blacks, and gays will made to look nice and
noble.

Anyway, the crucial question is how Soderbergh became Soderbergh the
Leftist. He wasn't born a neo-Marxist but was made into one by the
segment of the society that exerts tremendous influence on all of us,
especially on the intelligent, creative, and eccentric who come to
shape much of our culture and ideas thru academia, media, and the
arts.
As a young man with artistic ambitions, he would have found himself
watching movies made by leftists, reading film journals written by
leftists, and so on.
As a young man with interest in the world, he would have come upon
history books written by mostly leftists like John Lee Anderson.
Anderson is to Guevara what Edgar Snow was to Mao.
And, as a young person who wants to know more about the world and be a
good person, he would have been attracted to the idea of 'social
justice' of the Left.
The right talks of 'freedom', but such may not be enough for idealists
who believe that justice is even more important than freedom. Or, one
may argue that freedom is just an illusion that can only be afforded
by people with full bellies and privilege. If you're illiterate, dirt
poor, diseased, and/or racially discriminated against, what use is
freedom? So, many on the Left believe that freedom is meaningless
unless society is just or fair. Only when people are finally equal can
there be talk of freedom. What use is freedom when people are left
behind, dying of disease, or don't have basic rights? Considering
that capitalist or even supposedly democratic nations were not
entirely free--and that even those with full political rights often
lived in poverty--, 'freedom' sounded empty to many on the Left.
Of course, the Right can argue that it's not only for freedom but also
for values. Values are supposed to guide freedom and push people in
the right direction to succeed or warn them from exercising freedom
stupidly and bringing on self-destruction. But, freedom and values are
not as exciting as revolution and justice. Freedom means individual
freedom and stands in the way of collective action. Also, "values"
implies limitations for what should and can be done. This is all too
'bourgeois'. The left, in contrast, romantically dreams of a great
revolution that will be exciting and bring about tremenous change for
all mankind. And, the concept of justice is aggressive and action-
oriented. To speak of values means you should be careful about how
you use your freedom or that you should embrace certain codes of
conduct in order to succeed in life. It's about you and yourself and
your dear ones. The concept of justice means you have the moral,
social, and historical right to push--or even force--Humanity toward
the Great Truth. It means saving the helpless and noble and punishing
the evil and wicked. In the name of the people, it gives you power
over the people.

This is all the more so today with the advent of mass media.
There were ambitious artists in the past, but the nature of the media
did not allow for the kind of megalomania that we see today.
Michelangelo painted grand pictures but for the Church. The great
classical composer knew that their audience was limited to the
aristorcracy and the upper bourgeoisie. Whatever the artist's dreams,
he knew he was only playing to a limited audience. There was no
popular culture--at least not what we call popular culture--before the
late 19th century in the West. There was respectable culture for the
uppercrust and more popular-oriented culture for the lower bourgeoisie
who were still a relatively small segment of the population. The
proles who were just coming into being had their own forms of culture
but it was not crude, lowly, and fragmented. For those in the
countryside, there was folk culture in music and oral storytelling--
and the church. There were bohemians who didn't really belong to any
single group, but the best of them knew that their main audience and
patrons were the rich, so they had to play along. Also, the bohemians
were not interested in the masses.

It was with cinema, recording industry, and the electrified rock
concerts that mass culture took on a whole new meaning. Cinema
empowered the artist like never before. A film artist could make a
film that would be seen by millions or 100 of millions around the
world and make him among the richest people in the world. No artist
had that kind of power before. Recording industry gave this power to
musical artists. With electrified rock concerts drawing in tens of
thousands, a rock artist could really feel like a prophet or even a
god before an audience of up to a million! Such power was bound to be
intoxicating. Before electifried concerts, audience size had been
necessarily limited as sound could travel only so far. Also, prior to
recording technology performed music had no life outside their
performance. Had Maria Callas lived in the 19th century, it's doubtful
she would have become as mythic.
New technologies and the new media changed everything. They deified
artists into mega-celebrities, and artists were able to defy social
norms on ever greater scale. The realm of the new media became the
realm of new kings, princes and princesses, new gods, etc.
Listen to rock stars today and they all sound so self-important. Would
this be so if they were living in the 18th or 19th century? Back
then, their access and appeal to the masses would have been limited.
They would have to drearily travel from one town to the next in slow
carriages, playing in one music hall to the next. Without the mass
media, their shows could not have been promoted in a big way. Without
electricity and electronic mass media, their concerts would have
called for much smaller crowds. Without recording technology, their
music would have had life only while being performed. Most people in
the country would not have heard about them. There would have been
much less reason to feel like the neo-messiahs of the world. But,
today, rock stars play in city after city--all over the world--in
concert arenas with up to a 100,000 people. They fly from one place to
another on private jets. They are treated like princes and kings and
even gods. They are interviewed by magazines read by millions as
though they are sages of the age. They are promoted everywhere on TV
and internet. They are asked for advice on politics, humanity,
society, global warming, justice, etc.
The media go wherever they go. And, their recordings sell by the
millions or 100s of millions all around the world. So, is it any
wonder why so many artists today suffer from megalomania? And, Obama
may be the first ever media celebrity candidate. Previous candidates
used the media to promote their candidacy, but Obama has nothing other
than mastery of celebritydom. He knows how to walk the red carpet
while waving the red flag.

This is true in cinema too. Moviemakers, along with rock stars, are
the biggest megalomaniacs in the art today. Even if they don't start
out as megalomaniacs they soon become such because of the nature of
the medium. Movies today are bigger, louder, and more explosive than
ever. They are shown on huge screens in multiplexes all over the world
and rake in billions of dollars. And, they are sold by the billions
on dvd. No artist in history had the power of moviemakers. No
novelist, no poet, no painter, sculptor, or even architect had the
power of filmmakers. The nature of the medium what it is, cinema tends
to attract those who are megalomaniacally inclined to begin with--and
such people tend to make the most interesting filmmakers(why choose an
hot air balloon unless you intend to fly high?). This is all the
more true with Hollywood films which are the most popular, most
lavishly produced, and most heavily marketed. This is why so much of
European cinema is sullen with jealousy. Unable to beat the Americans
in the game of Bigness and Brashness, Europeans have opted win the
game of Seriousness and Avantgardeness.

This may explain why so many filmmakers are full of themselves. The
power just gets to their heads. When an author writes a book, he
knows he's telling a story or sharing his ideas. But, when a
filmmakers makes a movie, he thinks he's making a grand statement for
all of mankind. And, we and the media treat it as such. So, while most
people mostly ignored all the Kennedy assassination books that had
come out over the years, there was a national debate upon the release
of "JFK". Though there had been many books on Malcolm X, he'd
remained a cult figure except in the black community until the movie
"Malcolm X" came out.
The movie "Amadeus" made Mozart the most popular classical composer
over Beethoven who had held the position prior to Forman's movie.
Many news stories on TV are introduced with a reference to some movie.
So, a story on nuclear energy will refer to "The China Syndrome". It's
as though whatever happens in reality must refer back to some
fictional imagination. Because movies and tv shows function as
social, moral, and historical refererence points--no matter how
stupid, false, or misguided--, they are important in how we understand
reality. There was a time when American-Indian children cheered for
the cowboys over Indians in Westerns because those movies showed
whites as noble and good while Indians as ignoble and savage. Today,
white kids are raised to cheer for non-whites against whites. So,
despite the fact that many whites are brutalized by minority crime,
the impression that most whites--who live in segregated areas and are
ignorant of much of urban reality--get from movies, tv shows, and
documentaries is that of wonderful minorities and bad stupid whites--
unless one is a white uncle tom liberal.

Anyway, the failure of the Right to develop an artistic sensibility in
the 20th century is why the Left is winning the battle for the future
generation.
And, the left is deftly using the conditions created by capitalism.
Capitalism gave us consumerism which has hooked many Americans to pop
culture, hedonism, shallowness, superficiality, popularity contests,
celebrityhood, etc. There was a time when the Left looked upon all
such things as wicked and sinful. In time, capitalism has come to co-
opt the Left but the Left didn't surrender their ideology. The Left
decided it was their duty to use capitalism to fund socialism. The
Left is no longer stupid enough to think that capitalism should be
destroyed. The left looks upon capitalism as a necessary evil, the
goose that lays the golden egg that must be used for 'social
justice'. Those on the Right see capitalism as good in and of itself.
This is where the Left disagree. The Left has made peace with the fact
that capitalism creates wealth. The difference is the Left believes
that the rich should be highly taxed to carry our policies that
promote 'social justice'. The Left figures the rich should be allowed
to keep a 'decent' portion of their earnings as an incentive to create
more wealth but the much larger portion must go to taxes to promote
'social justice' to be dispensed by a vast bureaucratic elite.
And, many successful people are willing to support this idea because
their great wealth had made them feel spiritually empty('man cannot
live on bread alone'), guilty, and socially obligated. Successful
people tend to be better educated, which means they came under greater
influence of leftist academics in universities and hang around
'sophisticated' types at cafes, and attend cultural events like
theatre performances and art films which all tilt leftward. In
Hollywood, many new talents without prior political commitment turn
leftward because of the company one keeps. After awhile, it's
understood that cool, hip, decent, sophisticated, and caring people
are all on the Left. So, we have Brad Pitt being cloned into another
Robert Redford or George Clooney. In such places, the leftist
activists schmooze the big and important celebrities--especially the
young impressionable ones--, and soon the up and coming celebrities
have all become leftized.

This is why the Right, even as it is the home for Buckleyite snobs and
Dilbertish squares, must make room for the eccentrics, misfits, and
creative types who make the movies, documentaries, write the songs,
etc. This is possible today because liberalism and leftism have come
under the assault of dreary political correctness which too is anti-
creative.